I'm slow. Can you explain exactly why the cut and cover tunnel plus surface blvd will reduce traffic capacity as much as the PWC surface blvd?

I think this notion would probably require the entire EIS process - which has been going on for over 5 years now - to go back to the drawing board. Oh wait, I forgot, isn't there an imminent public safety emergency situation that led to the notion that the AWV must be replaced as soon as possible? I'm glad to know that we've got plenty more time to study this after all, as that adds another few years before my commuting life is turned into a living hell so waterfront property interests can reap a giant windfall.

Either way, that's upwards of $10 million spent on an EIS that multiple electeds are apparently willing to flush down the toilet to spare a few local politicians some embarassment. As if it will - Dino Rossi will probably start dialing for dollars the moment he stops laughing his ass off...

The cut-and-cover four lane underwater tunnel is DOA.

However, the Surface Plus Transit option you mention would have a chance.

Why in the HECK would the state pay MORE money for an underwater four-lane tunnel that provides LESS capacity when it can spend LESS money and rebuild a full elevated viaduct to modern earthquake standards, including sound buffering, OR build a Surface highway (no parking) with lights every 4-5 blocks only and have the city pay for the extra added transit?

Seriously, the moonies in the mayor's office need to get off the fine Canadian weed ...

Gosh, this is the best local news I've heard in a depressingly long time.

One item here: Rob Johnson of the Transportation Choices Coalition, which supports the six-lane tunnel, says his group “would be happy to see the discussion move in the direction� of a four-lane tunnel, “especially if it saved money.�

It seems like Transportation Choices Coalition has been fairly invisible on the viaduct issue, but I was under the impression they had always supported a four-lane option. Maybe not this particular configuration.

“The proposed solution: A four-lane cut and cover tunnel that would bypass downtown, serving north-south freight traffic and giving drivers who don’t want to sit through downtown traffic the option of paying a toll to pass it by.�

Well if it is going to benefit businesses mostly, then TAX businesses mostly.

Why aren’t the Democrats who won this huge mandate lining up taxing measures to get the corporate pigs to pay their fair share?

And the idea of a viaduct is still very much alive in Olympia, but again, with right-wing funding theories behind it. Seattle Sen. Jacobsen (D-46) just introduced a bill (SB 5022) that would impose a new county sales tax (of .017%) for paying off bonds on:
“a single viaduct . . . . or for the design, repair, or improvement of a Lake Washington bridge or bridges.�

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5022.pdf

A sales tax increase. THE MOST REGRESSIVE kind of tax. We pay one of the highest sales taxes in the country, and Jacobsen wants to pile it on more. How about some business taxes? The rich are thriving under the Bush regime’s policies, how about hitting up businesses for these projects which will mostly benefit businesses?

The problem with local Dems is they act like reactionary Republicans when it comes to tax policy. They only go after the poorest people, not the businesses who can afford it.

Mr. X: Either way, that's upwards of $10 million spent on an EIS that multiple electeds are apparently willing to flush down the toilet to spare a few local politicians some embarassment. As if it will - Dino Rossi will probably start dialing for dollars the moment he stops laughing his ass off...

Hey, I'd rather see $10 million wasted on failed studies than billions of dollars wasted on a patently stupid project that we're going to be stuck with for 100+ years.

As for Dino... Mr. X, I know it serves your interests to keep raising the Dino Rossi bogeyman, but Dino and the Republicans are pretty darn weak right now. The state Democrats can still err on the side of hubris, but they run a greater risk of erring on the side of being perceived as a bunch of timid, little girly-men -- running around afraid of doing anything because they're afraid of a big, bad Dino Rossi monster that only exists in their imaginations and your spin.

If four lane gets more support than six, don't stop. How about 3.5 lanes?

Josh Feit: "Another thing that’s far from clear is whether Chopp and Nickels would agree to an option that would reportedly reduce traffic capacity by about a third;..."

Josh: "Another question that remains unanswered is why a four-lane tunnel is being considered, but a surface option isn’t."

Another thing worth considering is Josh's unlimited ability to look a gift horse in the mouth.

The 4 lane bypass tunnel has been studied and much work has been done re: Environmental review. It was actually included in the DEIS. Not sure how much if any additional work will need to be done to complete environmental review on the bypass. It was pretty comprehensive in keeping a wide range of options on the table.

There have been lots of quieter and respected voices advocating the benefits of the 4 lane bypass tunnel for sometime(DSA, Planning Commission, lots of planner and architect types too) especially if it is found that the financing for the 6-lane tunnel was not feasible.

The bypass option will alleviate the concern that the waterfront becomes a giant gridlocked surface freeway and will reduce costs of a tunnel. It's great to hear that the City and State are negotiating and trying to find an acceptable compromise.

Cressona,
You miss the issue with Dino.
It is the very fact that the Democrats -- lead by Ms. Avoider in Olympia -- are all over the place and cannot manage what everyone has long been lead to believe is an "emergency" is what gives Dino a chance.

Cressona-- Um, I believe this post was actually submited by Erica Barnett and not Josh Feit.

Well, City Comforts, you're right about that -- just as you would be right to say that the Democrats in Washington, D.C. are handcuffed from dealing with this nation's problems in any serious and realistic way because the Republicans are just waiting to pounce the moment they do anything non-delusional.

Which is why I think a tough compromise like this, worked out among a number of leaders without having to punt to the voters, would be a political winner. For a region that never gets anything done, getting something done late rather than never is an accomplishment and will probably be perceived as such. And I kinda think any attempt to nail the Dems for a tough compromise like this would backfire.

"Hey, I'd rather see $10 million wasted on failed studies than billions of dollars wasted on a patently stupid project that we're going to be stuck with for 100+ years."

To the extent we don't squander $5+ billion on a tunnel (and it will be WAY more than that), I'd agree with this statement. My view on a rebuilt AWV would probably be kinder, but I'm still a retrofit guy...

"Cressona-- Um, I believe this post was actually submited by Erica Barnett and not Josh Feit."

Damn, you're right. All sarcasm and contempt hereby redirected toward Erica.

I always thought the bypass tunnel was a great idea and could shave something like 1 billion off the price. It seems much more financially and POLITICALLY able to fly.

"The cut-and-cover four lane underwater tunnel is DOA."

That is the opposite of true.

There is still no transit component. All that's been talked about is road capacity replacement with more roads.

Even with surface streets, something has to connect even the proposed parkway, street to Aurora. Or are you talking about dumping THAT traffic onto Denny Way ECB? Or Mercer? Exactly how would you route Highway 99? Under that configuration you're right- Alaskan Way won't have much traffic on it. It will be about the only place downtown like that.

"Another question that remains unanswered is why a four-lane tunnel is being considered, but a surface option isn’t"

Easy one - because while a 4-lane tunnel reduces capacity, it is still a limited-access facility that won't fuck Downtown and I-5 traffic up from hell to breakfast in nearly the way the EIS Surface Option and/or the PWC's fantasy-land proposal would.

Next question, please.

Re #3: "...build a Surface highway (no parking) with lights every 4-5 blocks only and have the city pay for the extra added transit?"

Wait, I thought the whole point of not building an elevated structure was to improve access to the waterfront. Now you're suggesting that instead of just walking under an elevated structure, people should have to walk several blocks and then wait for a pedestrian signal. That hardly sounds like an improvement to me. I don't think the condo developers who are driving the opposition to an elevated structure are going to like it.

Dave -- WSDOT is not a transit agency and when voters have agreed to tax increases to WSDOT they keep increasing road money. They even do things like stipulate that you have to spend the money on roads. WSDOT cannot just hand over the dough to Seattle for increased transit service (or to metor for increases to service in Seattle)

"s for Dino... Mr. X, I know it serves your interests to keep raising the Dino Rossi bogeyman, but Dino and the Republicans are pretty darn weak right now. The state Democrats can still err on the side of hubris, but they run a greater risk of erring on the side of being perceived as a bunch of timid, little girly-men -- running around afraid of doing anything because they're afraid of a big, bad Dino Rossi monster that only exists in their imaginations and your spin."

I forgot to comment on this point. It's nice to see that Cressona's grasp on polticial reality outside of Capitol Hill and the Stranger Editorial Boardroom remains as tenuous as ever.

#17: There is a transit component and it's paid for. Sure, it's not rail, but it's something AND it's paid for: Bus Rapid Transit from West Seattle to downtown is being implemented.

It's called "RapidRide" and you can read about it here:

www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/index.stm

It goes from SW Morgan Street to the downtown tunnel.

Quoting ECB: "And it would include a transit component, giving some of those displaced drivers a new way to get around."

Fair enough Mrs. Y- which is exactly my point. There isn't a transit component, nor will there be. You're exactly correct Mrs. Y that WSDOT is not a transit agency.

I just want to see the proof in the pudding. Someone, anyone, please show me the transit component!

Sorry 123, BRT doesn't exist yet. May not exist in the future. And from West Seattle, it's a joke. Lack of dedicated lanes westbound, no true connection when the Spokane Street fix gets under way... and the list goes on and on. Metro can't run what they've got now with any reliance or timelyness. Neither can Sound Transit. You think throwing even more buses in less space is gonna make it better?

Since that bus will be stuck in the same traffic as me, I'll stick to my seatwarmer, place to put my coffee and listen to tunes, and not have to walk 9 blocks to catch the nearest bus. At least I'll be comfy.

From Nov. 1 story - Before the state narrowed its viaduct-replacement options to two — a tunnel and a new elevated structure — it was looking at five possible plans. One was a bypass tunnel, replacing the viaduct with a four-lane tunnel along the central waterfront and expanding Alaskan Way to six lanes.

Paananen said that idea was dropped because it didn't include ramps to Elliott and Western avenues and because it would have dumped up to 50,000 vehicles a day onto Alaskan Way.

Paananen said a four-lane tunnel wouldn't save much money because the state would still have to build the two tunnel walls and would save money only in excavation and roofing costs.

"We're not talking billions in savings," he said.

A problem with a four-lane tunnel, he said, is that traffic coming into the viaduct from Elliott and Western avenues would have to merge into the two lanes coming out of the Battery Street Tunnel, which would be unsafe.

Ah, so #24, it is now revealed: You wouldn't take transit even if it was offered to you. No cup holders, not "comfy", and you can't crank the radio.

You are disingenuous. You would not take transit unless it stopped in front of your house, had private cabins, and took you to the front door of your place of business. You have no faith in any existing transit and you probably don't take it now anyway.

So stop asking for transit that you would never take even if it were faster and cheaper than driving. You value your private auto too much to give it up for less air pollution.

BRT is going to happen no matter how much you poo-poo it. Yes, it's not a proper subway, but it's a bus every 4 minutes. Have fun paying for parking and sitting in traffic.

Wow. Actual reporting. With, like, information and stuff.

Erica--if you had been paying attention and didn't hate the mayor so much, you would realize that he has been touting the four lane option as a possibility for about three months. Ask Dave Ross or CJ Douglas at the Seattle Channel if you don't believe me.

The four lane tunnel would still help freight and small businesses that are the primary users of the viaduct besides us West Seattleites. If we do the four lane and some of the surface improvements, I think we would be happy to get off the viaduct.

Three nobodys you know know more than you know sitting in a bar at 9:30 at night. Check out tomorrow's Seattle Times for the real scoop.

Wait, I'm still confused why we have to maintain capacity and have a stoplight-free route through Seattle. The rest of Hwy 99 has stoplights and the thing just fucking ends in Everett.

Also, if they build something besides the surface option, they better fucking toll it. They should also put tolls on the Lake Washington bridges. It is time for folks like Dave to stop getting a free ride.

the three amigos are closing out their bar tab after several more beers and we still know more than you know. Again, check out the "mainstream press" tomorrow.

Now you're suggesting that instead of just walking under an elevated structure, people should have to walk several blocks and then wait for a pedestrian signal. That hardly sounds like an improvement to me. I don't think the condo developers who are driving the opposition to an elevated structure are going to like it.

The condo developers are planning on private skybridges from their exercise rooms and roof decks to the waterfront. You got a problem with that?

3 Amigos: HAHAHAHAHAAHA! YUP.

@26: Yep 123, I'm disingenuous. That's why I lived for several years without a car in a variety of places where there was transit that generally worked. Like London, San Francisco, Sydney and Melbourne. Places that had trains, trams, buses... and weren't stuck in the same traffic as the cars. And BTW, the Metro areas of Sydney and Melbourne- around 4 million people. The Puget Sound region- around 4 million people.

Maybe if we had a suburban train system that ran with some regularity instead of one that runs 3-4x a day to not very many places people would use it more. Maybe instead of a green space trail on the eastside we should have a rail line. But Ron Sims wouldn't think about that- nor would the Microsofties with their multimillion dollar homes over there.

What I don't want to be is stranded and for it to take forever to go anywhere. I do use a car from time to time, and I take transit as well when I can. What I find disingenous are those that don't live in reality. Most of us in this area have cars not because we want to but because we have to. We don't all live in fancy little urbanized areas with close in coffee shops and trendy little places to shop. It should be easy to use transit for general trips and have a car available for specialized trips.

Strangling our road network will do nothing but stress our economy, making it harder to build the transit we need.

@30: Yep, I agree. I'm all for a region wide congestion charge for those that want to drive. I'd make it more expensive to go into more crowded areas such as downtown Seattle and Bellevue. We should also have HOT lanes.

I'm also in favor of charging for the miles that are driven.
Many countries do that. When I lived in New Zealand, you bought your tags for diesel vehicles by the kilometer (in 1000km increments). If you drive more, you pay more. You could even set it up with the first 6000 miles a year being pretty cheap, with it increasing more as you drive more. The tax system will have to move that way in the future because with cars getting more efficient, less gas tax is generated on a per mile basis.

That's reasonable Dave. The nice thing about congestion charges and tolls and and like, is that they clear up the roads because people ration their driving, in order to save money. Currently the system in place makes driving 1,000 or 11,000 miles a year virtually the same price (excluding gas prices, which are only a small part of the cost of automobiles).

If we internalize the cost of automobiles, many less people will drive and it would be more efficient for the economy overall (since people and businesses would have more incentive to optimize the routes and not drive unnecessarily). Meanwhile, the earnings would allow us to lower property tax, because it is no longer necessary to pay for roads with it (well, they better low them). Finally, buses would become better because there would be less congestion and people would be more willing to take them (since the savings is more noticeable). When this happens, we can start to internalize the cost of buses.

Re #32: Nope, as long as the people getting the benefit are the ones who pay for it. On the other hand, I'm not particularly in favor of asking the entire city to pay billions of dollars, and thousands of drivers to sit in worse traffic, so a handful of developers can profit.

Re #30: "Wait, I'm still confused why we have to maintain capacity and have a stoplight-free route through Seattle. The rest of Hwy 99 has stoplights and the thing just fucking ends in Everett."

Because I-5 lacks capacity through Seattle that it has elsewhere. There are areas in Seattle where it only has two through lanes, and there's no reasonable way to widen it. Another highway has to be available to take up the slack.

"Mr. X"'s definition of not being able to drive wherever he wants with the utmost convenience: "a living hell". It is this attitude held by so many Americans that has been creating a daily, real living hell for our soldiers and and Iraqi citizens for the last four years.
And am I out of the loop, but how do you build an UNDERWATER cut-and-cover tunnel for less than drilling one through land? The poster was mistaken about that underwater part, right? Does anyone remember what happened to downtown Seattle the last time a cut-and-cover tunnel was dug through it?

I am housesitting in West Seattle this week. I drove from West Seattle to downtown and back today. It worked pretty well. The rest of the week I took the bus that drove on the Viaduct and it also worked pretty well. The buses at anytime of the morning and afternoon communtes were all packed. I can understand why people who live over here want to keep that capacity. It took me about 25 - 45 minutes to get to downtown on the bus from where I am staying this week. That was a reasonable amount of time for a bus commute that is tops a 10 minute drive during non traffic hours. Right now the Viaduct is 6 lanes and it works pretty well. WesT Seattle Bridge has a pretty effective bus only lane, a little BRT would certainly help and direct access to the busway from the bridge. Is that still in the narrowed down version of the Bridging the Gap money that was passed?

I used to think that surface transit idea had some merit but I have to say that if I lived over here I would be very tempted to go for the tunnel and if no tunnel-- then the rebuild (as much as I hate to say it). I guess that's what happens when you walk a day in somebody elses shoes.

How about a 2 lane underwater tunnel used only by trucks and HOV (e.g. 2 or more adult passengers) with 2 lanes of bicyle paths? We could afford that ...

oh, and @16 - given the Gov's letter, you can apologize to me now.

@36 - actually, they just want every person in Seattle to pay an additional $4000 per person to build an underwater tunnel IN ADDITION to the taxes to build a replacement Viaduct or a Surface Plus Transit option.

For a family of four, that's the cost of four years of community college or two years at a state university ...